WestConnex - M4 East Upgrade

Submission on the West Connex EIS
Mr & Mrs Troy Cameron
5 Wolseley St Haberfield NSW 2045
Contact details : [email protected]

To Whom it concerns ,
We are located at 5 Wolseley st Haberfield and are located directly adjacent to the proposed Northcote tunnel site. We have major concerns regarding the project in general , however are particularly concerned to matters that may arise during the construction phase , and with the uncertainty of the zoning of the Northcote site post completion. We would ask that each of the following points be considered and adequate resposnses provided. The concerns are raised herewith:

1. Process of the EIS - additional time once plans are finalised:
as per our communications with the WDA , the actual plan for the Northcote works site has not been finalised and is still in draft stage (as at 28th Oct 2015). Based on this it is in fact not possible to provide conclusive feedback , and we would ask that an additional period of time be provided to the community once these plans are final so that any further concerns that come out of the final plans can be raised.

2. Process of community engagement and accuracy of information
Our property is located next to 3 Wolseley St Haberfield , which is one of the properties that were acquired under compulsory acquisition. We were advised by the owner of 3 Wolseley St at the time he was advised early in 2015. At that time , all drawings and photographs that were publically available , showed that 3 Wolseley St Haberfield would remain and not be demolished . This made sense to us on 2 counts (i) it is a heritage house that was situated inside the conservation line and (ii)it would provide a buffer between occupied properties and the Northcote work site. On that basis , as owners of 5 Wolseley st , we made a conscious decision not to sell our property , as we could probably withstand the construction period given a reasonable buffer , and this buffer would also provide a level of certainty of impact post production regardless of the zoning at that point. When the EIS released , changes had been made to the plan , with 3 Wolseley St to be demolished and the work zone to be adjacent to our property boundary.
Given this misleading information was a critical part of our decision making and that this change (whether by design or mistake) substantially changes the impact on us , in instantly reducing the value of our property and the ability to sell it given the timings , the potential impact during the construction period , and the impact any zoning changes may have post construction , we would ask for consideration to be given to compulsory acquisition of our property , or compensation by way of a cash settlement (factoring in diminished value and stamp duty to purchase another property of equal value)

3. Noise
Given the fact that our property is located directly adjacent to the work site , and that with the increase in loudness estimated to be between 32% and 100% (double) greater than current , we would ask that our property be given suitable "architectural treatment" so that the loudness experienced by us in no greater than 0.7dBA over current levels , in our house.. My wife operates a business from the property , and the proposed significant increases would make the doubling of noise during the daytime , near impossible to continue this creating issues for us in not being able to sustain our current income. In addition to this we have 3 young children (one of which has been treated for anxiety) living in the house , and having to deal with deprived sleep over the construction period (2-3 years) , would in our belief have a significant impact on their ability to function and develop. As raised in point 2 , our preference is for consideration being given to compulsory acquisition of our property , to enable a buffer to be provided to other residents and also overcome the issues we will face with regards to noise. If this does not occur , among the measures we would be seeking to be undertaken would be , suitable insulation added , the replacement of the current glazing with thickened laminated glass (to provide no change to the character of the property) , additional landscaping to absorb some of the noise and other measures as seen fit in discussions with specialist consultants.

4. Dust mitigation or compensation
Given that the Northcote work site will be a large workzone that will inevitable created dust , we would insist that during the construction period , all reasonable requests to clean our property and possessions of dust generated by the site will be undertaken and that the cost of any damage related to dust will be covered.

5. Road and traffic
Given that the final site drawings for the Northcote tunnel site are currently unavailable , a final assessment of the potential traffic impacts cannot be forseen. It is however reasonable to assume that with a significant number of trucks and a large number of workers and subcontractors attending the site daily , there will be a significant change to the current local traffic movements. We would like the following considered :
(i) That Wolseley st be cut off adjacent to the boundary of the tunnel site (effectively creating a dead end ) and the Cove street be one way from the corner near Wadim Bill reserve to Paramatta Rd ,(alternate suggestion would be modification of the raod only to allow a left hand turn out and not into Cove st off Paramatta Rd) thus preventing traffic getting off Paramatta Rd before the construction site to proceed to ramsay St and Wattle St
(ii) That no vehicular access to the work site , be provided from Wolseley St , and that it would be from Paramatta Rd and Wattle St only
(iii) That parking along Wolseley St , Cove St and Northcote St be restricted to 2 hours , residents exempt and also provided with visitors passes , and that a commitment be made by Ashfield council to police these restrictions on a daily basis

6. Parking for workers and sub-contractors
Given that the final site drawings for the Northcote tunnel site are currently unavailable , a final assessment of the potential parking impacts cannot be foreseen , however we would like the following considered.
(i) That the site have parking provisions for the maximum number of workers , plus a reasonably anticipated number for visiting sub-contractors , consultants etc
(ii) Should (i) above not be provided , a satellite parking area by set up at Canterbury racecourse or similar and shuttle bases provided for workers , whose route would also take in Ashfield and Croydon train stations to cater for workers travelling via train
(iii) Reasonable parking restrictions as per 5. Be implemented

7. Security
Given that the final site drawings for the Northcote tunnel site are currently unavailable , a final assessment of the security on our property impacts cannot be foreseen . Our major concern is related to the location of the pedestrian footpath that runs through the site to provide access to Wattle st , assuming no pedestrian access along Paramatta Rd.
It would be our expectation that proper security measures are taken should this path be located along the boundary of our property. We are concerned that should this access be along our boundary and that reasonable measures not taken , our property could be subject to robbery &/or vandalisation. Some measures that may be considered could be , but not limited to fencing of a reasonable height , that has a flat face that is not easily scaled , security cameras and lighting.

8. Fence construction
As per the advice to us from the WDA , the final specification of fencing to be erected along our boundary , or close to has not been decided. We understand WDA are still awaiting advice from noise specialists. We would insist that the following be considered and that further consultation take place with us prior to finalisation of the plan that accounts for :
(i) Noise reduction
(ii) Asthetics - colour and material
(iii) Shadowing of our property (obviously balanced with a need to reduce noise and also provide security)

9. Relocation during demolition and construction of Northcote tunnel site
Whilst it appears that actions are being taken to mitigate noise from tunnelling , there seems to be no mitigation taking pace whilst demolition of existing buildings occurs or whilst the construction of the tunnelling shed is taking place. It would seem appopriate and reasonable , and we would like consideration given to re-imbursing us for relocation during this period where we will have excessive disruption and noise and be unable to conduct normal , personal and commercial business in our property.

10. Zoning post construction
After approaches to Ashfield Council , WDA , and Urban Growth , we have been unable to establish , and it appears that no body is able to provide any clear direction regarding the zoning that will be applied once the construction phase is complete. The property adjoining ours is currently zoned 2(c) Low density residential , and was within the heritage zone
We would like an assurance that once sold by RMS upon completion , that the zoning control be handed back to Ashfield council , and that they in turn return the properties to the current zoning and also ensure that properties built within the existing heritage zoen are rebuilt in line with federation guidelines.

The inability to be able to access this information , has created a great deal of uncertainty for property owners such as ours , made decisions with regards to whether to stay or relocate difficult and being able to value a property in such a scenario for possible sale near impossible , again making logical decision making about a decision to sell very difficult.

Document attached

Uploaded below

Please find attached my submission on behalf of the constituents in the State Electorate of Summer Hill.

Regards,

Jo Haylen

I am objecting to this proposal. PDF attached

Please find attachments regarding our submission on-behalf of our clients

Submission attached.

See attached document

Please see attached letter.
Thanks, Sophie

see attached

M4-East Westconnex EIS | Public Display Response -- Landscape Matters

To: NSW DPE -- Major Projects Assessments
Att: Brent Devine Planner

FIND ENCLOSED
Letter concerns: Aboriginal, Olympic, Flame Lily Wave Garden.
Public Use by NSWG-DPE+NPWS discretion. Sacred Respect.

Submission to EIS for project SSI 6307 WestConnex M4 East

The 122-page PDF document attached contains the formal submission made by WestCONnex Action Group Incorporated (WAG) to the WestConnex M4 East environmental impact statement (EIS).

WAG is a community group made up of residents from across western, inner and south-west Sydney. We are not affiliated with any political party.

WAG strongly objects to the M4 East project based on the information contained in this EIS, and to the WestConnex proposal as a whole. We ask the Minister for Planning to reject this proposal.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning


RE: Submission: WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 6307)


I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I object to this proposal as it will have destructive impacts on heritage registered sites and buildings. Inclusive are buildings registered at: Local, State and National levels.

In particular I object to the demolition, destruction or relocation of any Heritage registered items or buildings either in part or whole across the entire Westconnex project, starting with the M4 part of this Westconnex project.

Those items and buildings that have been identified and are registered as Heritage listed items at any level of government (whether it be Local, State or National) should and must be preserved in their entirety in their current state on their current sites.

The fact that these buildings have been identified and registered as being significant should be enough justification of their importance to our community; our history; and our culture and must be preserved.

Workaround solutions for these items and buildings should in my opinion be mandated and be a key focus area across all the Westconnex project stages. There is no excuse as to why this should not be mandated as part of detailed design phase of all Westconnex project stages and strictly adhered to.

According to the New M5 SSI Application Report found on your website (page ii and 13):

"..consistent with the Westconnex program of works, ... an objective to protect natural and cultural resources and enhance the environment through the following key approaches:
....Minimise impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage"


Respectfully, "minimise" is not good enough. Total preservation of any heritage listed item or building in its entirety on the present site it occupies is the only acceptable outcome.


Thank you for considering this submission.

Jim Markellos

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning


RE: Submission: WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (SSI 6307)


I write to express my strong objection to the WestConnex M4 East motorway proposal.

I object to this proposal as it will have destructive impacts on heritage registered sites and buildings. Inclusive are buildings registered at: Local, State and National levels.

In particular I object to the demolition, destruction or relocation of any Heritage registered items or buildings either in part or whole across the entire Westconnex project, starting with the M4 part of this Westconnex project.

Those items and buildings that have been identified and are registered as Heritage listed items at any level of government (whether it be Local, State or National) should and must be preserved in their entirety in their current state on their current sites.

The fact that these buildings have been identified and registered as being significant should be enough justification of their importance to our community; our history; and our culture and must be preserved.

Workaround solutions for these items and buildings should in my opinion be mandated and be a key focus area across all the Westconnex project stages. There is no excuse as to why this should not be mandated as part of detailed design phase of all Westconnex project stages and strictly adhered to.

According to the New M5 SSI Application Report found on your website (page ii and 13):

"..consistent with the Westconnex program of works, ... an objective to protect natural and cultural resources and enhance the environment through the following key approaches:
....Minimise impact on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage"


Respectfully, "minimise" is not good enough. Total preservation of any heritage listed item or building in its entirety on the present site it occupies is the only acceptable outcome.


Thank you for considering this submission.

Sotiria Markellos

I strongly object to this proposal as it will have a destructive impact on heritage registered sites and buildings.

There are buildings registered at Local, State and National
levels that will be impacted.

In particular I object to the demolition, destruction or relocation of any Heritage registered items or buildings either in part or whole across the entire Westconnex project, starting with the M4 part of this Westconnex project.

I reject this project and the EIS done for this project which is shockingly poor in substance when it comes to decribing the impact to the health of residents living near the tunnel exist and smoke stack to the point where I find that this data seems to be witheld on purpose. Ref letter in annex.

The impacts I would like to address are: usage of Bill Boyce Park; Road works at the corner of Pomeroy St and Wentworth Rd Homebush; and the exhaust ventilation stack at Short St.

I have 2 attachments one are my comments on these impacts and a sketch

refer to attached document.

I submit part 2 of the People M4 EIS

This is part 3 of the People's M4 EIS submission